United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF MAY PROCEED ON COGNIZABLE
CLAIMS (ECF NO. 15, 16 PP.3-5) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION REGARDING EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (ECF
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dashawn Wilson Combs (“Plaintiff”) is a state
prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's first amended complaint,
filed on September 16, 2019, is before the Court for
screening. (ECF No. 15.)
Screening Requirement and Standard
Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners
seeking relief against a governmental entity and/or against
an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint, or any portion
thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or
malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief from a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . .
. .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations
are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).
While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts
“are not required to indulge unwarranted
inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted).
survive screening, Plaintiff's claims must be facially
plausible, which requires sufficient factual detail to allow
the Court to reasonably infer that each named defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss v. U.S. Secret
Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). The sheer
possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not
sufficient, and mere consistency with liability falls short
of satisfying the plausibility standard. Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 (quotation marks omitted); Moss, 572
F.3d at 969.
is currently housed at California Correctional Institution at
Tehachapi, California. The events in the amended complaint
are alleged to have occurred at Kern Valley State Prison.
Plaintiff names the following defendants: (1) L. Moore,
Correctional Lieutenant; (2) E. Ruelas, Correctional
Lieutenant; (3) C. Brubaker, Correctional Sergeant; (4) J.
Ronquillo, Correctional Officer; and (5) R. Perez,
alleges that on November 27, 2018, Plaintiff was having major
pains in his left hand from a previous break during a fight.
On November 27, 2018, Plaintiff went man down because of the
pain in his hand and asked the tower officer to call for
medical attention because his hand was leaking pus. The tower
officer called medical many times and later, the officer let
Plaintiff out to go to medical. As Plaintiff was walking to
medical, the C-yard patio security gate officer asked
Plaintiff where he was going, and Plaintiff told her to
medical. She told him to wait at the C-yard gate. As he was
waiting, Defendant Brubaker came out of the C-yard program
office and told Plaintiff to go back to his cell. Plaintiff
told Brubaker of his hand condition and that he had
permission from the tower officer to go see
Brubaker became upset and told Plaintiff to go back to his
building. Plaintiff said no, and he wanted to talk to a
Lieutenant. Defendant Brubaker called on his radio, and
Defendant Perez came out of the medical building and Ms.
Ventura also came out to where Plaintiff and Brubaker were.
Defendant Brubaker walked up to Plaintiff and
“socked” Plaintiff in his mouth, and slung him to
the ground by his right arm. Defendant Perez jumped on the
left side of Plaintiff's lower back with her knee and
grabbed the broken hand twisting it behind Plaintiff's
back. Plaintiff was put in handcuffs, and they lifted him by
the handcuffs behind his back. Plaintiff was pulled up off
the ground by the handcuffs and was put in a cage in the
C-yard program office.
Brubaker came back with Defendant Perez and Defendants Moore,
Ronquillo, and Ruelas. They were making comments to him and
laughing at Plaintiff and threatened him. Both Lieutenants
Moore and Ruelas grabbed Plaintiff by his shirt and slammed
him against the cage wall several times and socked Plaintiff
in the face. They took him out of the cage, and Plaintiff was
angry and called them names. He was slammed on the ground on
his back by Moore and Ruelas and his left hand did a
“pop.” Defendant Perez grabbed Plaintiff by the
neck, choking him by placing her left knee in his stomach and
with Defendant Brubaker holding Plaintiff's right
shoulder down with his right knee. Thinking he might die,
Plaintiff began to struggle, but he passed out. He awoke
being wheeled in a wheelchair, with blood all over his
and Perez “snatched” him out of the wheelchair,
but Defendant Ronquillo grabbed the bottom of the leg cuffs
chain, pulled so that Plaintiff fell forward hitting the
center of his chest on the day room wooden bench. They then
took him to his cell. There, Ronquillo snatched both of his
legs one by one while Sergeant Brubaker and Perez held both
of his arms so that Plaintiff fell forward hitting his chin
on the ground. They put their knees into his lower back
holding his arms to take off the handcuffs. They left him in
his cell, bleeding without medical treatment. Plaintiff
passed out from the pain. He did not get treatment until 2
days later. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive
Failure to Exhaust ...